This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

Originally Posted by talloulou

The question is meant as a trap and yet it has merit anyway.

I didn't take it as a trap. It touches a fine point in ethics that most people simply haven't considered-- and that most people aren't really willing to get too close to. If asking the tough ethical questions is to be considered dishonest or predatory behavior in debate... I fear for the society our grandchildren will inherit.

Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat

I didn't take it as a trap. It touches a fine point in ethics that most people simply haven't considered-- and that most people aren't really willing to get too close to. If asking the tough ethical questions is to be considered dishonest or predatory behavior in debate... I fear for the society our grandchildren will inherit.

I agree 100%. In trap I just meant that the OP understands that many homosexuals are prochoice and that the feminist movement and gay rights movements tend to back each other up for whatever reason. So the op was trying to get a flinch based off that knowledge. But I agree people shouldn't be afraid to make others pause for thought.

I also believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that if there were a gene found for homosexuality than many would abort for that very reason so it does deserve some thought.

I also know how you feel about eugenics so I know that plea for an emotional flinch probably didn't work on you! But that's one of the reasons I respect ya so much. You don't sugar coat and I get very tired of all this talk of "it's not her fault" blah blah blah. You shouldn't have to see pictures of abortion blah blah blah. Women shouldn't have to look an ultrasound of their baby blah blah blah. I feel it allows such an atmosphere of denial that the topic of discussion is actually hidden away even in the language of the discussion.

Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

Originally Posted by talloulou
I agree 100%. In trap I just meant that the OP understands that many homosexuals are prochoice and that the feminist movement and gay rights movements tend to back each other up for whatever reason.

Not really.
Witness PLAGAL, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians.
Their main theme is that the LGBT community needs to break away from its traditional alliance with the feminist community, because if abortion remains legal it will eventually be used to weed out homosexual fetuses if and when a "gay gene" is discovered.

Frankly, these people are clowns, shooting themselves in the foot.

NOW and other national women's rights organizations have done so much for the LGBT community it's not even funny, even though publicly supporting them is not in our political best interest.

The prochoice cause has the support of about half of the general population; a little more than half.
The Gay Rights movement doesn't have nearly as much mainstream support, nor nearly as much private funding to promote their interests.
Feminists have traditionally allied with Gays because we believe in equality for all people.
And this PLAGAL crap is the thanks we get.

Of course, I realize this is only a fringe element.
The majority of the mainstream GLBT community recognizes the benefits inherent in remaining allied with Women's Rights.
But it's still pretty insulting; I've yet to encounter an equivalent situation involving a feminist group that actively promotes homophobia or discrimination against gays.

Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

Legaly? I know that that right is not SCOTUS established, which would be why I'm arguing for it, duh.

If the right doesn't exist, you have no point. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Jerry

You can force her to behave in certain ways as long as it has an impact on your children,

There yah go, that's it, abortion has a rather negative impact on my child, so per your argument I should be allowed to force her to behave in a sertin way....ie, bring the child to term.

But you don't have that right, so the point is moot.

Originally Posted by Jerry

The bond between mother and child is not severed with a mere stroke of the pen.

Legally, it sure as heck is.

Originally Posted by Jerry

It is not her fault that removing the child from her body kills it.

Heh, yes it is.

No it isn't.

Originally Posted by Jerry

You mean "She always has the right to give up her interest in {her} children....".

We call that "abandonment", which is a form of abuse.

You endorce women abusing their children by abandoning them.

Legally? No it isn't abandonment; women do it all the time when they give their children up for adoption or divorce their husbands and relinquish all custody rights. Do I think it's a good idea? Hmmm . . . oh yeah: they aren't my kids, so it isn't up to me.

Originally Posted by Jerry

Also, I don't think that a parent can just up and relinquish right on a whim. I don't have case law or policy on it one way or the other, but that seems very counter intuitive to a "compelling state intrist".

So how do kids end up in foster care? Are they ALL taken away by the state?

Originally Posted by Jerry

Well there you go, she does not have a right to not allow my choices to affect hers. What ever I do will affect her. What ever she does will afect me.

Sorry, I can't follow this. She does not have to obey you; simple as that.

Originally Posted by Jerry

You are profering the woman. What heppened to equality?

When it comes to abortion rights, women always take precedence: it is their bodies that we discuss.

Originally Posted by Jerry

Your analogy is thus falacious and unfounded.

Your whole argument is fallacious and unfounded.

Originally Posted by Jerry

By your own logic you have no right to force your view on me, so by voting you become a hypocrit.

Actually, it's an interesting point. I suppose society and democracy in general might be immoral, then, inasmuch as they limit personal freedom. But I am of the opinion that society and democracy are both beneficial for individuals, and that this would outweigh the loss of freedom implied in laws and rules.

This does not, however, prove that you have the right to command another to give up control of her body. Even society cannot do that. But I will concede that the right to be free to make any and all decisions without any influence from another is not absolute.

Originally Posted by Jerry

But not the controller of her body.

Being the controler of her body is not an established requierment to have "a fundimental Liberty intrist in the care, controle and managment" of my children, so your argument is moot.

No it isn't. You can control your child, within certain limitations: if you decide it is the spawn of Satan, you can't kill it -- your control over it is imperfect. Your control over it while it is in her body is nonexistent, as it is in her body: to control the child, you would have to control her body without her consent, and you don't have that right.

Originally Posted by Jerry

You want me to stand down and be disabled from protecting my children from being attacked by their mother, all against my will. By casting your vote you are forcing your view on me, which by your oun logic you have no right to do.

You still do not have the right to control her body, and so I am not taking rights away from you in this instance. But if you did have that right, this would be one of those things that I would argue society should be able to do: prevent your wife from becoming your slave simply because you impregnated her.

Originally Posted by Jerry

So, speaking of choice, you have the choice between being logicly consistant and not voting or acting in a hypocritical way by forcing your view on me.

Well, you may be right, but since I am not an absolutist, I'll probably see it more as two different issues. But even if I am a hypocrite, you shouldn't have the right to control her body.

Originally Posted by Jerry

You just labled yourself a hypocrite, then.

So be it.

Originally Posted by Jerry

That's a prity general statment.
So, by your logic, I have no right to force someone to stop assulting me.....without their consent, that is.

No, his right to assault you does not exist, so you don't need his consent to protect yourself.

Originally Posted by Jerry

I have 2 legs to stand on, Roe and Troxel.

If my wife can dismiss my fundimental rights on a whim, then given gender equality and the 14th., it logicly followes that I can dismiss her fundimental rights on a whim as well.

She can't dismiss your fundamental rights, because your right to control her does not exist.

Originally Posted by Jerry

Pro-Choice has already eliminated that argument.

Just as those exact words carry no water in the eyes of PC who acuse me of forcing them to do this or that when I vote in favor of anti-abortion legislation, neither do those words carry water here when used to defend abortion.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Jerry

Of coase we're still talking about abortion...I'm just doing my damndist to avoide the "personhood" issue....it's proving to be almost as dificult as finding unbiased reserch on homeschooling.

Unfortunately, when you abandon one argument based on a right that does not exist, you have to move to another right that does not exist: your right to control your wife's body. The fetus doesn't have it, society doesn't have it -- even I as a hypocritical/relativist voter don't have it -- and you don't have it. And you shouldn't.

But as I said, I will concede that the right to be free of any influence is not perfect; but it does apply to bodily sovereignty.

This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.

Originally Posted by Wessexman

See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.

Originally Posted by ernst barkmann

It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

Originally Posted by Felicity

Although acting on a homosexual orientation is something that is a behavior choice and thus a woman aborting for "gayness" is dictating whether or not a person should live based on a potential behavior, Tay-Sachs is a disease that one cannot help but manifest and therefore the same logic can't be applied.

Even so, I still believe that a ZEF with Tay-Sachs is a person--perhaps his mother may not, and merely considers it diseased tissue. I believe she is wrong, but working with the pro-choice logic offered here (if the pro-choice side would admit to it and accept they cannot justify killing fetus' for gayness by their own reasoning), identifying a disease is not the same as identifying a "preference."

Excellent post, showing how my potential 'red herring' was easily refutable. I agree there is a difference because, even if there is a gay gene, gayness is not a disease. It is a behavioral response to sexual orientation, same as heterosexuality.

This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.

Originally Posted by Wessexman

See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.

Originally Posted by ernst barkmann

It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

In the unlikely event that my wife becomes pregnant by me again, and she chooses to keep it against my will, she will have forced that life, the life of raising a 3rd child, upon me.

It would be my will to force her to abort that child. Pro-Life would bar me from doing so.

To bar me from forcing my beliefs on another is to force that belief of yours onto me, which by your own logic you have no right to do.

PL actively enables mothers to dictate to others how they will live, which PL says no person has a right to do.

Makes sense. This is the problem with most abortion debates and why my own position on it fluctuates.

Decided to put my analogy up there as a refernce point.

Originally Posted by Jerry

Unlike CoffieSaint style Pro-Choice, Pro-Life accepts the notion that it is acceptable to force one's will upon another in qualified circumstances, so there is no hypocrisy in your analogy on PL's part.

So in other words, you are saying that my analogy is perfectly acceptable to the pro-life position? A pro-lifer would not be allowed to force their will on one to prevent an abortion? Doesn't sound like the pro-life position to me.

In PLís eyes, if the mother wishes to force the father to have a child against his will, she is just in doing so.

Is the essence of pro-life, anti-choice?

Also, PL Christians would argue that you, in that situation, are obligated to set aside your own wishes to abort, and take care this new child; to act and to treat it as though you deeply love and care for it, even if you really don't, because you are in the wrong for not wanting it.

I totally do not adhere to this viewpoint, but I understand the consistency of the PL Christian view, here.

The equivalent to that from PC would be PC Atheists/Humanists arguing that you, in that situation, are obligated to embrace your own wishes and abort this new child; to act and to treat it as though you despise its existence, even if you really didn't, because you are in the right for not wanting it.

Not exactly. A PC Athiest view would be that you, in that sitaution are obligated to make a choice and either choice is an acceptable one.

But of coarse that is not a PC view, and so this stands as an illustration of the difference, which is not simply an opposite, in the premises and logical paths between PL and PC.

I think if I get you, correctly, you are saying what I always say about the abortion issue and why it is so difficult for me to consider myself on either side. There are too many issues and shades of gray when dealing with the pro-life/pro-choice argument.

This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.

Originally Posted by Wessexman

See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.

Originally Posted by ernst barkmann

It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"